The wheels have been set in motion for a proposed 10-year seismic project that covers basically the entire Scotian Shelf and the Scotian Slope.
The plan involves an area extending from approximately 40 km from the southern coastline of Nova Scotia to 350 km offshore.
The draft project description was filed with the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NSOPB) by Multiklient Invest AS (MKI), Oslo, Norway and TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company ASA (TGS), Houston, Texas, as the first step in the environmental assessment (EA) process.
Before any activity can take place, MKI would have to make application for and be granted, a geophysical work authorization, says the C-NSOPB in a press release.
“No such application has been submitted at this time. A project-specific environmental assessment (EA) would need to be submitted in support of such an application; the project description has been filed to initiate this process. The C-NSOPB has developed a scoping document (SD) outlining requirements and key topic areas for MKI to asses within their EA.”
Designated the Multiklient Invest AS Nova Scotia Offshore Seismic Program, 2019–2028, “MKI is proposing to conduct a multi-vessel geophysical program offshore Nova Scotia on the Scotian Shelf and Scotian Slope that may include up to 15,000 km2 of 3D seismic data acquisition and potentially up to 10,000 km of linear 2D seismic survey lines per year,” reads the project description.
“Specific data acquisition plans for 2D and 3D seismic surveys during 2019–2028 have not yet been determined and are dependent on industry demand. The project area is 259,400 km2 and encompasses the majority of the C-NSOPB jurisdictional area originating approximately 40 km from the southern coastline of Nova Scotia to 350 km offshore.”
The project area excludes the Gully Marine Protected Area (MPA), St. Anns Bank MPA, Georges Bank Moratorium Area and is located a minimum distance of 40 km from critical North Atlantic right whale habitat in Roseway Basin.
The proponents are proposing to conduct the seismic surveys between May 1 and Nov. 30 each year.
“The duration of the survey will depend on the acquisition methodology, survey size and design and is anticipated to take between one and five months. The survey will run continuously, subject to weather and equipment delays.”
With the public comment period passed on the EA Scoping Document, the next step is for the C-NSOPB to finalize it, post it on the C-NSOPB EA registry and provide it to the proponent, said C-NSOPB spokesperson Stacy O’Rourke.
“The scoping document outlines the requirements and key topic areas for MKI to asses within their EA. The proponent will then use the scoping document to prepare the EA. This includes the proponent conducting Indigenous and stakeholder engagement. Once drafted, the proponent will provide it to the C-NSOPB for review. It will be posted on the C-NSOPB EA registry for a 30-day public comment period. All comments within scope will be forwarded to the proponent to revise, if necessary, based on comments, the EA. It is then provided back to C-NSOPB to make a determination on the likelihood of significant environmental effects from the prospect. To receive geophysical work authorization, the proponent must demonstrate that all necessary steps have been taken to safely protect and minimize impact to the marine environment. As part of an application for authorization, a significant amount of information must be submitted to the C-NSOPB for its review and acceptance.”
O’Rourke said it’s “important to note that while the EA is being conducted on a large area of the offshore, it does not mean that activity will take place in the entire area. The geophysical work authorization application will include exactly where they propose to conduct a seismic survey. The project description states that the proponent is proposing to conduct multiple seismic surveys between 2019–2028. Each proposed seismic survey program during the project period will require a separate authorization. With each authorization, the environmental assessment will be reviewed to determine if any additional mitigations need to be included based on the environment at that time.”
The Clean Action Ocean Committee (COAC) is calling the MKI concept “absolutely ludicrous given all the new information that’s out on the dangers and damage that seismic blasting causes both to commercial species and the highly susceptible species including the right whale,” said director John Davis.
“We are totally opposed to blanket seismic work on the Scotian Shelf and we are totally opposed to the Statoil Equinor activity scheduled to start this spring.”
An application to conduct seismic activity by Statoil Canada (now Equinor Canada) in exploration licences 2435 and 2436, which are near Georges Bank and Roseway Basin, is still pending final approval from the C-NSOPB.
The two parcels were leased to Statoil Canada by the C-NSOPB in 2015 and cover areas of 3,677 km2 and 2,842 km2 respectively.
The project scoping document for a potential seismic program was provided to Equinor in 2017, outlining the requirements and key topic areas to be assessed within their EA, said O’Rourke.
“The EA has not been completed which is required as part of a geophysical work authorization. Until this happens, a seismic program cannot be approved. The C-NSOPB has not received a geophysical work authorization application from Equinor at this time.”
Davis said COAC, the Council of Canadians through the Campaign to Protect Offshore Nova Scotia and the Offshore Alliance have called for a moratorium on offshore drilling pending a full federal/provincial public inquiry. The groups are stating the case that although Nova Scotia created an independent panel on fracking onshore, it has never had a parallel study of oil exploration and drilling offshore where much more is at stake.
“We are calling for a full public inquiry about all offshore oil and gas activity because every time we ask experts outside of what the C-NSOPB calls experts we find we don’t have functional regulatory oversight of the oil and gas industry,” said Davis.
“We require a full public inquiry just like the fracking inquiry, so we can clearly understand what the risks and benefits might be and whether or not we are putting the renewable resources we depend on at risk. That’s our position and we are adamant about it.”
